K33 







Glass. 
Book. 



E 40^ 



a 



A "^ 3 



A REPLY 

T O 

CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS 

CONCEHNING .,JLi— - 

GEORGE ¥. HUGHES.'"'^ 

B Y 

CHARLES LEE JONES, 

M 

OF WASHINGTON CITY. 



My attention has been called to the following extract of a pub- 
lication purporting to be a "letter from Baltimore from an occa- 
sional correspondent," published some time ago in a newspaper 
printed in Annapolis, and also to a pamphlet lately put in circu- 
lation, entitled, "some facts concerning Col. George W. Ilughca 
for the consideration of the Democracy of Maryland : 

LETTER FROM BALTIMORE. 
(From an Occasional Correspondent*) 
"Amonr^ the distinguished Democrats spoken of in tliis connection, I 
am pleased to inform you that Col. Geo. W. Huonfis, of yoor county, 
has many staunch advocates in this city and in almost eVerycounty 
of the State. Considering that the gallant and gentlemanlyColonel 
enjoyed the confidence and esteem of General Jackson for many years 
previous to his death, and that he was one of the first and staunchest 
supporters of that old Hero's administration, I am not surprised at his 
popularity among the Democratic Veterans of Maryland. With our 
young men Col. Hughes is a particular favorite. They consider him 
just the man to awaken an enthusiasm among the democratic masses, 
and to carry the State by a triumphant vote. He possesses qualifica- 
tions for the chief magistracy of our State, equal to any one who may 
be named in connection with it. He is a logical and polished speaker, 
and possesses an abundant store of information on almost every sub- 






'M'd^ 



ject. He has formed an extensive acquaintance throughout the State, 
and all who know him intimately, speak of him in terms of praise. 
His reputation as a public man is a national one — it is not confined to 
the limits of our State. During the war with Mexico, the Washington 
Union repeatedly alluded in eulogistic terms to his services in the sev- 
eral capacities which he filled, and the columns of that paper contained 
productions of his pen, which showed him to possess a mind which the 
proudest among us might envy. Should the choice of the Democratic 
Convention fall upon Col. Hughes, he will make a Governor who will 
prove an honor to old Maryland. 

"Certain tools of a would-be Colonel of Washington city, have been 
at work here to create a prejudice against Col. Hughes, on account of 
a flogging that was inflicted by his order upon a worthless ruflian sol- 
dier in Mexico, but that game has been blocked by respectable and 
reliable men, whose testimony has been collected through the agency 
of a democratic gentleman well known to you. I have seen and read 
the correspondence, and I pronounce it a triumphant vindication of the 
Colonel from the slanders of his enemies. On that point, therefore, 
his numerous friends may rest perfectly easy." 

Any one at all acquainted with the habits and the tactics of 
the ^^ distinguished^^ individual so bepraised in this letter will not 
fail at once to recognize its author, for who else under the sun 
could so write, or so think, of George W. Hughes, but that 
"distinsfuished gentleman" himself* Indeed its whole tenor 
and style are so like the ^^ eulogistic terms'''' that used to be ap- 
plied to George W. Hughes in the newspapers during the Mexi- 
can war^hat now, as then, every body sees the hand-writing on 
the wall, and knows the author to be this same Geo. W. Hughes. 

I am alluded to in this beautiful piece of composition as "a 
would-be Colonel of Washington city." Now what is meant by 
this appellation I do not know, as I happen to hold a commission 
under the President of the United States of that rank and that 
title, and therefore am no "would-be Colonel," as far as rank and 
title go ; but I presume it is intended to refer to the fact that I 
would have been Colonel during the Mexican war, at the head of 
troops raised by my personal exertions and at vast pecuniary 
sacrifices, had it not been for this ^^distinguished gentleman'' s''^ 
''^consenting to devote his splendid abilities y'^ together with his 



''logical and jioUshed speaking,^' in intriguing with the then ex- 
istin"- administration of the government to commit on me a down- 
ri<Tht fraud, and acquire to himself the fruits of my labor and ex- 
ertions, in which he fully succeeded. 

'■'Certain tooW^ of mine are charged with having been at work 
to create a prejudice against him. Now if I wanted additional 
ear-marks of the author of this letter I need go no farther than 
this expression, for it will be readily perceived that he is here 
judging me by himself, and thinks me capable of the meanness 
habitual to himself, in employing irresponsible 'HooW to do what 
every gentleman should have the honor and courage to do for 

himself. 

But what are these "■tooW'' charged with doing, in order to 
create a prejudice against this "Distinguished Democrat 9" Noth- 
ing more nor less than in speaking the. truth, in condemning his 
conduct, while acting as Military and Civil Governor of Jalapa, 
in Mexico, during the late war, when instead of acquiring the 
honors and reputation of a soldier fighting the battles of his coun- 
try as others all around him were doing, he was content with 
despotic powers as such Governor, and in lording it over those 
who had, against their will, and in violation of the terms of their 
enlistment, been placed under his command; and habitually prac- 
ticino- the most atrocious insults and outrages on the volunteer 
soldiers and citizens, both disgraceful to him, and our country ; 
and deo-rading to them. History has yet to record the first bat- 
tle that this "gallant Colonel'^ ever was engaged in, or in any 
shape or way connected with. 

Inasmuch as the most of the men under his command, from 
the District of Columbia, had been induced, by my " energy, in- 
fluence and means," to enter the Public Service, and had actually 
been mustered into the Service as in a Battalion under my com- 
mand, they naturally looked upon me as one likely to feel some 
interest in their welfare, and accordingly wrote to me detailing the 
wrono-s and oppressions that were constantly heaped upon them by 
their "gallant and gentlemanly Colonel.''^ Upon which I deemed 
it my duty to call the attention of Congress to the matter, and 
accordingly sent in a short memorial setting forth the general 



charge of oppressions against Colonel Hughes. In reply to this 
memorial, the counter-memorial now again published and brought 
before the public, in the pamphlet lately issued, entitled " Some 
facts concerning Col. Geo. \V. Hughes," &:c., made its first ap- 
pearance. In reply to which, I published, at the time, a pamph- 
let in the shape of a supplemental-memorial, in which was fully 
exposed the disreputable means resorted to by Col. Hughes, and 
his tools, to impose upon the signers of his Counter-memorial. 
And in order to leave no further room for prevarication and eva- 
sion, the general charge of oppression was reduced to the follow- 
ing particulars which never have, in any way, been controverted 
or disproved : 

"I, InsuUinfT, abusive, and most indecent epithets frequently — in- 
deed it might be said habitually — uttered by Captain Hughes against 
both officers and men on duly, tending to degrade both him who ut- 
tored and tliem who received the abuse, and to subvert all discij)line, 
and all sense of common decency among officers and men. 

"Among the many specifications that may be cited of this pernicious 
and disgraceful demeanor to officers and men, your memorialist states 
tlie following as being most indubitably vouched. 

"On the 22d February last, Capt. Hughes, being apparently excited 
and flustered from some unknown cause, came to the parade ground 
where the regiment was going through some manoeuvers, and imme- 
diately poured fourth a volley of abuse against both officers and men ; 
the epithets were of the most vituperative sort, and were uttered with 
a tone and manner to make them most offensive ; he repeatedly tlireat- 
ened the men with violence from his own hand. So abusive and in- 
sulting was his language and conduct, and so indiscriminately insult- 
ing to officers and men, that at last one of the Captains indignantly put 
up his sword — swore he would not stay to hear either himself or his 
men insulted in that way, and contemptuously retired from the parade 
to his quarters. The state of discipline was such, that this captain was 
not brought before a court martial for his open contempt of his supe- 
rior officer, in the face of the regiment, on parade ; and so, whether 
the breach of discipline were the fault of the Captain or of the Colonel, 
has never been judicially ascertained. 

"11. Frequent, wanton, cruel, and dangerous assaults, committed by 
Captain Hughes on the men under his command, with his sword ; 



5 



sometimes beating and bruising the men with the flat of h.s sworcl a 
other times cutting and wounding them with its edge ; but the lightest 
of which blows should have cashiered him, as was the fate of an other- 
wise excellent oHicer a few years ago, for a blow hastily given to a 

soldier. „ ,, . , ,. 

-Your memorialist is now able to specify the followmg soldiers, as 
havin'r suffered under this sort of violence, to wit: John Macl3eth, 
Thos^Youncr, Christopher C.Clements, John Saulsbury, and Alexan- 
der H Harvvood, of whom, Macbeth and Young were sorely cut with 
the edge of the sword, and the others beaten with it; and of whom, 
Clements, Saulsburv, and Harwood have since died. 

-IIT. Now comes the specification of an act so atrocious as a violation 
of all law, and of the most sacred rights of the citizen and soldier, and 
so cruel as a personal infliction on an individual, that your memorial- 
ist could not be brought to credit the accounts he received of the com- 
mission of the act, till the last spark of his skepticism was extinguished 
by the testimony of many and credible eye-witnesses. _ 

"A private soldier, and a volunteer in one of the companies from 
this District, named John T. Davis, was charged in some confused 
way never well understood, with having assaulted a Mexican woman 
who kept a house of public resort in Jalapa. Davis, himself, always 
denied and yet denies most strenuously, that be was the person who 
commi'tted the offence; but has always declared that if a proper op- 
portunity had been afforded him he could have proved his own inno- 
cence and have thrown the act upon another person; and your mem- 
orialist is credibly informed that such is the general belief of h.s com- 
rades The question, however, of his own guilt or innocence weighs 
not the dust in the balance even to mitigate, far less to excuse, the 
ouiraceouslv illegal and cruel tyranny which lacerated his body and 
weakened his constitution with cruel and ignominious stripes, and 
subjected him to the lingering ills of penury and disgrace. 

"This man (without a hearing, or any fair opportunity to repel the 
charge) was summarily ordered by Captain Hughes to receive filty 
lashe^^s on his bare back. The Captain, it is said, remained in sight, 
though at some distance, while the stripes were inflicted with all m.l- 
itarv%everitv-and just as that number was completed he ran down 
to the place of punishment and vehemently ordered twenty-fiye more. 
Those bein.^ inflicted with the same severity, he again ordered twenty- 
five more; "but, as the man seemed cruelly lacerated and exhausted 
with the seventy.r.ve already inflicted. Captain Hughes humanely 
suffered himself to be begged out of the remaining twenty-five. 



6 

"The man, after romaininjr in tlie hospital for some weeks, was dis- 
jrracefully discharged from tlie service by the order of his commander, 
and incurred all the forfeitures incident to sucli discharges; and had 
to find his way home in utter penury and destitution, encountering 
such ditficulties by the way that it was only within a few days past 
that after long, circuitous and painful travel, he at last got back to 
liis friends in Georgetown." 

The last case stated above was so atrocious and flagrant 
a violatiun of the laws of the United States, passed for the 
protection of the American soldiers, that a suit at law was brought 
by Davis against Hughes ; which has now established beyond all 
controversy, by the verdict of twelve of this " distinguished 
Democrat's" countrymen, the entire truth of this charge. A jury 
of twelve disinterested and impartial men have punished this " dis- 
tinguished gentleman y''' with " a mind the proudest among us might 
envy,^^ in a verdict of ^950.00, which is believed to be the 
lieaviest damages ever given by any jury in a case of tort, in this 
District. 

Col. Hughes and his " tools''^ have attempted to palliate and 
excuse this outrage by asserting that the soldier Davis had com- 
mitted or attempted a heinous crime upon a virtuous Mexican 
girl. Yet, notwithstanding this case was continued two terms 
of the Court, that he might procure evidence of such fact, not 
the sJighest evidence has ever been produced to show that 
either such a crime or any attempt to commit the same had ever 
been perpetrated. On the contrary, it was proved on the trial that 
the only offence committed was an affray in one of the common 
eating-houses in Jalapa, which was kept by common and degraded 
Mexican women, in which one of the women received.some slight 
wound ; no proof was adduced that Davis had either intentionally 
or accidentally inflicted that wound. On the contrary, it was 
proved by a credible and unimpeached witness, that it was most 
likely the act of another. It is sufficient however to say, that I 
have conversed on the subject with a hundred or more of the re- 
turned volunteers who were in Jalapa, and on the spot at the 
time, and not one of them while in Mexico ever heard that such a 
crime had been committed or attempted. 

The only testimony adduced on the part of Hughes to support 



this cliar^e was ihat of one Mr. Jarvis, the same person, no doubt, 
who flourishes so conspicuously in the pamphlet purporting to con- 
tain '■^some facts^'' who testified that he acted as interpreter for 
Col. Hughes, and was employed to interpret the complaint made 
by the Mexican woman, who stated that an assault had been 
made upon her with an attempt to commit a rape. This Mr. 
Jarvis proved himself lo be as '•'•distinguished'''' an interpreter as 
so '■'■distinguished a CoXoneV might be supposed to employ, illus- 
trating the adage of the blind leading the blind, for when called 
upon while on the witness stand to give the Spanish word for 
rape he did not know it, but gave another and different word. 

But even if this testimony of Mr. Jarvis was true, which the 
jury and every body else who heard it discredited, and a complaint 
to such efTect had been made as stated, it neither palliates nor ex- 
cuses the atrociously cruel conduct of Col. Hughes, but aggra- 
vates and stains his crime with a deeper, still a deeper dye — for 
him, dressed in a little brief authority, to usurp the powers and 
prerogatives of both judge and jury, and that in the face of posi- 
tive and direct law, and upon such evidence and with such an 
interpreter to try, to convict and to punish an innocent American 
citizen for so monstrous a crime! 

But, guilty or innocent? is not now the question. There were 
appointed means then and there to have resolved the question. 
General order No. 2S7 expressly mentioned among the catalogue 
of crimes that of rape, or attempt at rape, and expressly directed 
that It should be tried by military commission. This was Col. 
Hughes' law, as binding on him there as any statute of Maryland 
would be if he were her sworn Governor, yet he chose to trample 
it under fool and on the mere assertion^ (according to his witness 
Jarvis,) of a Mexican woman, to order an American volunteer to 
be tied to a cannon and receive 75 lashes on his bare back, in a 
public plaza, aimidst the hoots of the Mexican rabble. 

Had any military trial whatever been allowed to Davis, he would 
probably have proved his entire innocence of any offence, much 
less the abominable charge that has since been trumped up against 
him for the purpose of shielding Col. Hughes from the bublic in- 
dignation. 

In fine, it will be seen that every opportunity of proving the 



jutlificatioii on wliich lie relies has been aOiyrded to Col. Huylica 
in a court of justice at the seat of government, a^ttl he has signally 
Jailed to prove it. He cannot now appeal from tlie verdict of an 
impartial jury to ex farte certificates. That fair trial to which , 
under the constitution and laws, Davis was in Mexico entitled, he 
has here in Washington received. 

It has established both that he was innocent and yet was cruelly 
punished. 

I now leave it to the public to decide whether Col. George W* 
Hughes is (as proclaimed in his pamphlet) '■'■a gentleman of whom 
every Marylaiider ought to feel -proudy 

Annexed is a letter from one of the eminent counsel engaged 
in the case of Davis against Hughes, from which it will be seen 
that I have correctly slated the evidence in the case. I also sub- 
join a short copy of the verdict, not one dollar of which has yet 

been paid. 

CH. LEE JONES, Washington City. 
August 1, 1&53. 

Wasiiingtox, August 3, 1853. 

My Dear Sir : — In the case to which you refer, and as to which 
you request my statement, it may be sufficient to say that the Court 
ruled that the scourging of Davis by Col. Hughes' order could not be 
justified even if the facts were as alleged by Col. Hughes, since the 
orders in force made it his duty to try Davis hy a Military commission, 
and not to sit in judgment liimself. But the Court also ruled that CoL 
Hughes might give in evidence in mitigation of damages, any facts 
tending to show that he had reasonable ground to believe tliat Davis 
had committed the alleged ofTence. And in support of this, a witness 
named Jarvis was examined as to the complaint made and examina- 
tion before Col. Hughes, but no witness as to the fact of the alleged 
crime. The case v/as submitted to the jury wilhoiit argument, and 
they gave a verdict of 8950.00' damages against Col. Hughes. 

I believe this is all that is necessary to meet the inquiry made in 
your note. Very truly yours, 

J. M. CARLISLE. 

Col. CiiAS. Lee Jones, preijent. 

CIRCUIT COURT WASHINGTON COUNTY. 
John T. Davis ^ March Term, 1852— 28d May. Judgment oti 
vs. > verdict for plaintiff $950 damages and $295 

Geo. W. Hughes. ) 19 costs. 

Test, JNO. A. SMITH, Clerk. 



i-fc H '\Q 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 896 695 8 




''x^f'f^w^ 



m^ 






■/J;^:\4:i.' 




